a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed Feb 15 20:10:50 UTC 2006
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
>> Of course not. Let SBC and Cox obtain a _joint_ ASN and _joint_
>> address space. Each provider announces the aggregate co-op space
>> via the joint ASN as a downstream.
> This is unworkable obviously: Think next about SBC and (say)
> Verizon customers, then what about those with Cox and Verizon, then
> SBC/Cox/Verizon. etc.
At first, I thought so too. But, it is a fact that in many locations
the number of possible connections is
very limited. Here in Western Fairfax, basically just the two
mentioned. Why not create aggregation ASN that exploit that ?
Otherwise, I think that you are dealing with an explosion in the
routing tables as people multihome.
A real objection here would be that
this would tend to lock out new providers (say I wanted to set
up a 802.16 ISP in Northern Virginia - I would not be happy if
everyone had to renumber to use me. But, why not allow new ASN's into
the aggregation AS pool if
they meet some minimal requirements, and are in the right
geographical area. In a sense, you would be
trading some local inefficiency in return for a greater global
> Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.
More information about the NANOG